6 ms·

their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at i

by nyolfen 10y ago

their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at it at some point down the line. your web browsing history (or whatever) sitting on a hard drive in utah doesn't fall under this definition until they look at it. [1] https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE

jancsika 10y ago
And we have no idea if their idiosyncratic definition has changed since then.
logn 10y ago
Ah so that lends credence to my rationale for scraping websites. Until I actually look at the scraped data no scraping has taken place so no terms of use have been violated. When I look at the scraped data the terms of use come into effect but now I'm personally present so no robotic scraping has taken place.
- elevenfist 10y ago
  Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Eureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!
    - pyre 10y ago
      The government can exempt themselves from IP laws. For example, the government has exempted itself and defence contractors for violating patents (to build top secret devices) in the past.
    - rietta 10y ago
      Yeah, not going to happen because of "the national security interest of the United States". A related concept is a contract contrary to public policy.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Alas! Sovereign immunity means you can't sue the government without their permission.
      - xmj 10y ago
        Where are you going to sue the government... in a government court?
        DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
        Only in a revolution, I suspect. And revolutions are not to be undertaken lightly.
        rhizome 10y ago
        ...yes? Couldn't there be valid causes of action for government acts? Are we simply assuming bad faith on the part of the government for any possible scenarios?
  - rovr138 10y ago
    Is it illegal?, https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping The answer from Pablo Hoffman talks and provides some links regarding web scraping and US cases.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  That's what I do! I just download and store (but not collect!!) all those stupid Marvel comic films, just to piss off the MPAA (and for security purposes / the children). And this is fine because I don't actually watch them. Or can stand them. It's the rules, and I don't wanna break them!
elevenfist 10y ago
This isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  The important aspect for the NSA's interpretation is that algorithms can look at and process the data and create metadata or synopsis information from it. Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection". Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records. Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    And what will you need to show to obtain said rubber stamp? This is not secret, either: Search for "how FISA works" here: http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files...
    - killjoywashere 10y ago
      Curiously, a fair amount of genetic research is done this way: the genetic info is PHI, but the covered entity holds the data and the computer capacity. The researcher just pushes an algorithm to the cluster and gets aggregate results back.
      - 10y ago
infogulch 10y ago
So all it would take is for them to change their policy at any point in the future, even only for a few minutes, and instantly "collect" all current and historical emails from Americans.
- andreyf 10y ago
  No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OKs the suspect's communications being reviewed.
  - c517402 10y ago
    So, they archive the data and promise not to collect it (look at it) unless they have a national security letter signed by a judge^H^H^H^H^H drinking buddy from the office.
    - andreyf 10y ago
      Not only do they "promise" but they realize they'd be violating the legal boundaries placed on their organization if they do. Arguing they shouldn't have the capability for this is like arguing the army shouldn't be allowed to have tanks because then they have the capacity to perform a military coup. No judge has ever signed an NSL. That's precisely the distinction between a "regular" judicial subpoena and an administrative subpoena [1]. Subpoenas have nothing to do with NSA interception, and everything to do with ordering businesses to produce evidence or individuals to testify pertaining to a crime. The case law setting the "expectation of privacy" test is from the 70s, and the electronic wiretapping laws from the 80's. The only recent development is that SCOTUS decided people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their cell phone connects to cell towers because that's obviously how they work [2]. You don't need a law degree nor security clearance to understand this. Stop finding reasons to justify your anger and start getting informed. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
mtgx 10y ago
Why are judges only focusing on the "search" part of the Fourth Amendment and not on the "seizure" part as well? That kind of action should count as a seizure, no? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- btilly 10y ago
  If you still have the thing, it clearly hasn't been seized. Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
  - justinclift 10y ago
    That draws an interesting counterpoint: the RIAA's long standing attempt to have copying of non-physical things be perceived as theft.
    - bitexploder 10y ago
      It is right out of a comedian sketch. Then govt massively penalizes citizens for doing a thing. Turn around with a straight face and tell you, in the name of National Security, that it is okay for them to do it.
      - tastythrowaway2 10y ago
        Scumbag Uncle Sam
guscost 10y ago
Ah, the old "Schrodinger Defense".
bobwaycott 10y ago
So they're taking a rather quantum take on this as a superposition of states that are unknown until measurement occurs and they collapse the wave function into being "collected". Cool.

by nyolfen 10y ago

jancsika 10y ago

And we have no idea if their idiosyncratic definition has changed since then.

logn 10y ago

Ah so that lends credence to my rationale for scraping websites. Until I actually look at the scraped data no scraping has taken place so no terms of use have been violated. When I look at the scraped data the terms of use come into effect but now I'm personally present so no robotic scraping has taken place.

elevenfist 10y ago
Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Eureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!
  - pyre 10y ago
    The government can exempt themselves from IP laws. For example, the government has exempted itself and defence contractors for violating patents (to build top secret devices) in the past.
  - rietta 10y ago
    Yeah, not going to happen because of "the national security interest of the United States". A related concept is a contract contrary to public policy.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Alas! Sovereign immunity means you can't sue the government without their permission.
    - xmj 10y ago
      Where are you going to sue the government... in a government court?
      - DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
        Only in a revolution, I suspect. And revolutions are not to be undertaken lightly.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        ...yes? Couldn't there be valid causes of action for government acts? Are we simply assuming bad faith on the part of the government for any possible scenarios?
- rovr138 10y ago
  Is it illegal?, https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping The answer from Pablo Hoffman talks and provides some links regarding web scraping and US cases.
tripzilch 10y ago
That's what I do! I just download and store (but not collect!!) all those stupid Marvel comic films, just to piss off the MPAA (and for security purposes / the children). And this is fine because I don't actually watch them. Or can stand them. It's the rules, and I don't wanna break them!

elevenfist 10y ago

This isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.

jwtadvice 10y ago
The important aspect for the NSA's interpretation is that algorithms can look at and process the data and create metadata or synopsis information from it. Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection". Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records. Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.
- andreyf 10y ago
  And what will you need to show to obtain said rubber stamp? This is not secret, either: Search for "how FISA works" here: http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files...
  - killjoywashere 10y ago
    Curiously, a fair amount of genetic research is done this way: the genetic info is PHI, but the covered entity holds the data and the computer capacity. The researcher just pushes an algorithm to the cluster and gets aggregate results back.
    - 10y ago

infogulch 10y ago

So all it would take is for them to change their policy at any point in the future, even only for a few minutes, and instantly "collect" all current and historical emails from Americans.

andreyf 10y ago
No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OKs the suspect's communications being reviewed.
- c517402 10y ago
  So, they archive the data and promise not to collect it (look at it) unless they have a national security letter signed by a judge^H^H^H^H^H drinking buddy from the office.
  - andreyf 10y ago
    Not only do they "promise" but they realize they'd be violating the legal boundaries placed on their organization if they do. Arguing they shouldn't have the capability for this is like arguing the army shouldn't be allowed to have tanks because then they have the capacity to perform a military coup. No judge has ever signed an NSL. That's precisely the distinction between a "regular" judicial subpoena and an administrative subpoena [1]. Subpoenas have nothing to do with NSA interception, and everything to do with ordering businesses to produce evidence or individuals to testify pertaining to a crime. The case law setting the "expectation of privacy" test is from the 70s, and the electronic wiretapping laws from the 80's. The only recent development is that SCOTUS decided people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their cell phone connects to cell towers because that's obviously how they work [2]. You don't need a law degree nor security clearance to understand this. Stop finding reasons to justify your anger and start getting informed. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

mtgx 10y ago

Why are judges only focusing on the "search" part of the Fourth Amendment and not on the "seizure" part as well? That kind of action should count as a seizure, no? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

btilly 10y ago
If you still have the thing, it clearly hasn't been seized. Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
- justinclift 10y ago
  That draws an interesting counterpoint: the RIAA's long standing attempt to have copying of non-physical things be perceived as theft.
  - bitexploder 10y ago
    It is right out of a comedian sketch. Then govt massively penalizes citizens for doing a thing. Turn around with a straight face and tell you, in the name of National Security, that it is okay for them to do it.
    - tastythrowaway2 10y ago
      Scumbag Uncle Sam

guscost 10y ago

Ah, the old "Schrodinger Defense".

bobwaycott 10y ago

So they're taking a rather quantum take on this as a superposition of states that are unknown until measurement occurs and they collapse the wave function into being "collected". Cool.